ML19221A820
| ML19221A820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0555, NUREG-0555-08.4, NUREG-555, NUREG-555-8.4, SRP-08.04, SRP-8.04, NUDOCS 7907090191 | |
| Download: ML19221A820 (9) | |
Text
Section 8.4 February 1979 PRELIMINARY
- ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION 8.4 STAFF ASSESSMENT OF NEED 8.
4.1 ASSESSMENT
OF BASEL0AD GENERATING CAPACITY 8.4.2 RESERVE MARGIN ASSESSMENT 8.4.3 CAPACITY /PEAKLOAD COMPARISONS 8.4.4 SCHEDULE EVALUATION 8.
4.5 CONCLUSION
REVIEW INPUTS Environmental Report Sections 1.1 System Demand and Reliability 1.3 Consequences of Delay Environmental Reviews 8.1 Description of the Power System 8.2.1 Power and Energy Requirements 8.2.2 Factors Af fecting Growth of Demand 8.3 Power Supply Standards and Guides None Other Applicant's annual report Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies Responses to requests for additional information Annual report of appropriate Electric Reliability Council to the Federal Power Commission in response to Order No. 383-3 REVIEW OUTPUTS Environmental Statement Sections 8.4 Staff Assessment of Need 8.4.1 Assessment of Baseload Generating Capacity 8.4.2 Reserve Margin Assessment 109 O!5 This ESRP will be revised at a future dai.e.
7 9 070 96tcli 8 4-t
February 1979 8.4.3 Capacity /Peakload Comparisons 8.4.4 Schedule Evaluation 8.4.5 Conclusion Other Environmental Reviews 9.1 Alternatives to the Project: Energy Saurces and Systems 10.4 Benefit-Cost Balance I.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this environmental standard review plan (ESRP) is to direct the staff's review and assessment of the need for new baseload generating capacity.
This will include an assessment of the timing of the need for the additional capacity.
The scope of the review directed by this plan will include a comparison of baseload capacity with baseload demand, a reserve margin assessment, a comparison of total capacity in relation to peakload demand, a schedule evalua-tion, and an ultimate conclusion regarding the need for the electrical produc-tion capability of the proposed facility.
II.
REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMATION Since the principal inputs to this ESRP are the environmental reviews for ES Sections 8.2 and 8.3, the required data of those sections should be used in this section.
In addition, the following data and information will usually be required:
A.
Projected.baseload demand from the present to 3 years af ter initial commercial operation of all proposed units.
B.
Reserve margin criteria for the applicant's service area.
C.
The applicant's calculated reserve margins extending from the present to the first 3 years af ter initial operation of all proposed units.
8.4-2 109 076
February 1979 D.
Historical data on installed and actual reserve margins at the time of summer and winter peak hourly demand for the 15 years prior to the date of appli-cation.
E.
The relationship between reserve margin (expressed as percent) and system reliability level (expressed as one day's outage in 10 years, 5 years, etc. ).
III.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The reviewer will calculate baseload demand as that portion of forecasted kWh sales occurring at loads equal to or less than the average load. The fore-casted growth rates of kWh sales to be used in this analysis include the appli-cant's forecast, and the high, midrange, and low forecasts developed by the staf f (ES Section 8.2.1).
If the range of reasonable forecasts developed by the staff includes the applicant's growth r<>.e, the reviewer will perform the analysis for the high and low forecast of the range and the applicant's forecast. If the range of f orecasts falls totally below the applicant's forecast, the reviewer will use the high, midrange, and low kWh sales developed by the staf f.
If the range of forecasts falls totally above the applicant's forecast, the reviewer will use the applicant's forecast and the low and midrange staff forecasts.
The reviewer will analyze the power supply data (e.g., capacity f actors, variable costs, redesignations) and estimate the baseload capacity of the system using the evaluation of ES Section 8.3.
The reviewer will compare the supply of baseload capacity with demand for baseload capacity for the first 3 years of commercial operation of all proposed units.
The reviewer will identify the reserve margin" requirements currently in acceptance for the applicant's service area and will identify the organization A
Reserves are defined in this ESRP as the difference between accredited net generating capacity and peakload responsibility; the reserve margin is this difference divided by the peakload responsibility.
109 0 F' 8.4-3
February 1979 responsible for establishing this requirement.
The reviewer will determine if the reserve margin requirements at the time the proposed units are scheduled to begin operation are different from the current reserve margin requirements. The reviewer will contact the appropriate regional reliability council, other relia-bility councils, power pools, and the Federal Power Commission to compare this reserve margin requirement with requirements recommended by these organizations.
The reviewer will calculate the applicant's accredited generating capacity (i.e., total installed capacity plus nonfirm purchases and less nonfirm sales) for the period extending from 1 year prior to commercial operation of the proposed first unit to the third year of commercial operation of the proposed last unit.
The reviewer will calculate peakload* rasponsibility based on the growth rates for peakload demand calculated for ES Section 8.2.1.
For reviews requiring additional staff analysis, the reviewer will :alcu-late peakload responsibilii,y based on three forecasted growt h rates for peak-load demand.
These will be determined by contrasting the applicant's projected growth rate for system peakload with the range of growth rates developed by the staff for the system peak.
IT the range of reasonable forecasts developed by the staff includes the applicant's forecast, the reviewer will perform the analysis for the high forecast of the range, the applicant's forecast, and the low forecast of the range.
If the range of forecasts f alls totally belew the applicant's forecast, the reviewer will use the staf f forecasts.
If the range of for ecasts fal!s totally above the applicant's forecast, the reviewer will use the applicant's forecast and the staf f's low and midrange f orecasts.
For each estimate of peakload responsibility ** and for each year under consideration, the reviewer will calculate reserve margin as:
A For each growth rate used, calculate system peakload for the relevant years and adjust for firm purchases and sales and interruptible contracts to obtain peakload responsibility.
- Peakload responsibility is defined as system load plus firm sales and less firm purchases.
8.4-4 g9 073
February 1979 Peakload Responsibility - Accredited Generating Capacity Reserve Margin Peakload Responsibility
=
Based on the reserve margins and the projections for baseload demand, the reviewer will determine the timespan representing the probable dates when plant capacity will initially be needed.
The reviewer will prepare an analysis of the costs and benefits of not having sufficient and timely capacity additions and also the costs and benefits of adding capacity too soon.
For these purposes, the reviewer will assume the applicant's proposed date of commercial operation of all proposed units and consider the effects of the load matet ializing 3 years earlier than this date and 3 years later than this date.
The reviewer may shif t the 6 year timespan where conditions specific to the service area suggest this to be appropriate.
Appendix A to this plan contains suggested examples of some of the elements to be considered in this analysis.
The reviewer is cautioned that treatment of this subject will require, at a minimum, participation by the socioeconomic and benefit-cost reviewers.
IV.
EVALUATION If the projected peakload responsibility plus the reserve requirement exceeds the total accredited generating capacity, and absent special circum-stances, these findings justify the conclusion that new capacity is warranted.
Although this criterion does not show a need for baseload capacity, it does demonstrate a need for lew capacity that is independent of type.
This criterion, coupled with an af firmative indication that there is a need for baseload capacity, justifies a baseload addition within the timespan determined by the reviewer's forecast analysis.
If the above criteria cannot be met, it may still be possible that the proposed facility will be needed on some other basis.
Additional considerations include the following:
109 0'9 8.4-5
February 1979 8
A.
The applicant's need to diversify sources of energy (e.g., using a mix w
of nuclear fuel and coal for baseload generation);
B.
The potential to reduce the average cost of electricity to consumers; C.
The nation-wide need to reduce reliance on scarce fuels; D.
Where a significant benefit-cost advantage ic w nriated with plant operation before system demand for the plant capacity develops.
(This will require the reviewer's benef it. cost ev<tiuation of the consequences of not having sufficient baseload capacity or of adding this capacity too soon.)
If none of the above criteria can be satisfied, the reviewer may conclude that there is no need for additional baseload generating capability of the scale represented by the applicant's proposal during the timespan considered.
V.
INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT This section of the environmental statement will be planned to accomplish the following objectives:
(1) public disclosure of the applicant's forecast of need for the proposed project, (2) a presentation of the stcff's analysis of the applicant's forecast, and (3) a presentation of the staf f's conclusion of whether additional capacity is needed within the timespan developed by the staf f.
The following information will usually be included in ES Section 8.4:
A.
A table showing baseload demands, baseload capacities, and resulting deficit or surplus (see Table 8.4-i)
B.
A table showing peakload responsibilities, accredited generating capacities, and resulting reserv.e margin (see Table 8.4-2).
C.
A brief description of the reserve margin deemed desirable by the staf f based on its evaluation of applicant's analysis and supplementary sources of information.
~J
} P[)
UC 8.4-6
February 1979 D.
The staff's conclusion as to whether or not additional capacity (repre-sented by the proposed plant) is needed within the timespan developed by the staf f.
E.
A tabulation of costs and benefits associated with bringing the proposed plant online as scneduled but not having the electrical demand materialize as projected.
The reviewer will provide inputs or ensure that inputs will be made to the following ES sections:
A.
Section 9.1.
The reviewer will provide the reviewer of ES Section 9.1 with information to assist in the consideration of alternative sources of energy that might provide the baseload generating capacity.
B.
Section 10.4.
The reviewer will provide the reviewer of ES Section 10.4 with a summary of the benefit-cost analyses dealing with the consequences of not having suf ficient baseload capacity or of adding this capacity too soon.
VI.
REFERENCES 1.
Federal Power Commission, National Power Survey,1970.
2.
Federal Power Commission, Steam-Electric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production Expense, Government Printing Of fice, Washington, DC, published annually in April.
3.
A. L. Toalston, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Of fice of Antitrust and Indemnity, A Primer on Electric Power Supply, March 13, 1973.
4.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Fuels Electric Energy Consumption -
Census of Manufacturers, Government Printing Of fice, Washington, DC, most current issue.
5.
American Gas Association, Gas Data Book, Arlington, VA, published annually.
6.
American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, and Canadian Petroleum Institute, Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquids, and Natural Gas in the U. S. and Canada and U. S. Production Capacity as of December 31, 1974, Vol. 29, May 29, 1975.
8.4-7 109 08:
TABLE 8.4-1 BASELOAD CAPACITY BALANCE UNDER THREE GROWTH RATE SCENARIOS YEAR BASEL0AD BASELOAD DEMAND (MW)
BASELOAD CAPACITY BALANCE - (SURPLUS OR SHORTAGE) - (FW)
CAPACITY (MW)
LOW-END APPLICANT'S HIGH-END LOW-END APPLICANT'S HIGH-END FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST 1984 1985*
g
[ 1986 1587 1588 a
year unit is expected to come online c'o C
x oW O
a w
C3
['J 9
O
TABLE 8.4-2 RESERVE MARGIN UNDER THREE GROWTH RATE SCENARIOS YEAR ACCREDITED SYSTEM PEAKLOAD RESPONSIBILITY (MW)
RESERVE MARCIN (% OF PEAKLOAD RtSPONSIBILITY)
GENERATING CAPACITY LOW-END APPLICANT'S HIGH-END LOW-END APPLICANT'S HIGH-END (MW)
FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST
.p 1984 w
1985*
1986 1987
]998
~,c c,
CD m
h l'J year unit is expected to come online Q
33